Announcing 2003::/16 during tests of "shipworm"

[Bob Fink]

Jan,

At 02:59 AM 12/9/2001 +0100, Jan Oravec wrote:
>Bob,
>
> > >I see no reason to not allow *ANY* prefix that has a legit purpose for
> > >testing on the 6bone.  This should in no way break any existing 
> asignments.
>
> > I do agree with this. The 6bone is a test network, and as such would 
> not be
> > doing a proper job if we didn't allow new ideas (and prefixes) to be used
> > for testing, as long as they don't mess up others (which Rob covers below).
>
>How can you ensure, invalid prefixes will not get into production
>networks ? 6bone is big enough to this be impossible - many AS does not
>filter anything.

Networks peering with 6bone pTLAs need to filter for many obvious 
production reasons. If they don't, many worse things can happen than this 
usage.


>Microsoft does not need to announce 2003::/16 to test ShipWorm. They say,
>they want to test it, not to provide 6bone/IPv6 connection thru ShipWorm.
>If they want the second, they can SNAT 2003::/16 to some valid address or
>wait for IANA assignment.

Well, they clearly did feel the need to do this, and to my knowledge no 
harm has resulted.

Note that I'm not supporting anything more here than the need to filter in 
general, and that the testing of SHIPWORM with this prefix isn't harmful to 
the 6bone if folks follow the rules.


Thanks,

Bob